Relationship between Fundamental Rights and

Directive Principles of State Policy

PART-III
In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas , the SC said that the Fundamental Rights
and DPSP should be built in such a way to be with each and every possible
effort should be taken by the courts to solve the dispute between them.

The Supreme Court has used the Fundamental Duties to uphold the
Constitutional validity of Statutes which tends to promote the objects expended
in the Part IV of the Constitution i.e. Fundamental Duties. These Duties are held
to be obligatory for all citizens, subject to the State enforcing the same by
means of a valid law. The Supreme Court has also issued directions to the State
for making the provisions effective and enabling a citizen to properly perform
their duties.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,  The SC has submitted that

DPSP are fundamentals in the governance of the country. So, equal importance
should be given to the meaning and concepts of Fundamental Rights.

In Dalmia Cement v. Union of India The SC said that Fundamental Rights and

DPSP are supplementary and complementary to each other and the Preamble of
the Constitution which provides an introduction, Fundamental Rights and DPSP
are conscience of the Constitution.

In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,  The SC said that no difference can

be made between these two sets of rights. Fundamental Rights are the rights
which deal with the Civil and Political Rights whereas DPSP deals with social
and economic rights. DPSP are not enforceable in courts but it doesn’t mean it
is a subordinate.
A notable change had come in the judiciary on the question of the
relationship between the Fundamental Rights and DPSP.

.In re Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court observed ‘though DPSP

cannot override Fundamental Rights, but in determining the scope and ambit of
Fundamental Rights the court couldn’t ignore the Directive Principles but they
should adopt the principle of Harmonious Construction and should attempt to
give effect to both. The Supreme Court also began to assert that there is no
conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. They are
supplementary and complementary to each other.

In Minerva Mill case, the court observed that Part III and Part IV are the two
wheels of the chariot as an aid to make social and economic democracy. The
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are the basic structure of the
Constitution.

Now, Article 46 of the DPSP guides the affirmative action under Article 15 (4)
and Article 16 (4). The Directive principles of ‘Equal pay for equal work’ and
‘participation of workers in management’ were received through Article 14 and
also freedom of occupation under Article 19 (1) or right to livelihood under
Article 21. In Consumer education and research centre v. UOI  by reading
Article 21 with Article 39-C, 41, 43 and 48-A, Justice K. Ramaswamy held for
the court that ‘The health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right
to life’.

Conclusion

The Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles are the
two faces of a coin that serve a single purpose i.e. the interest of the citizen.
Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles provisions
are defined under Part III, Part IV-A and Part IV of the constitution.
Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties go to the roots of how a citizen
acts in the society whereas Directive Principles are the guidelines for the State
to create and pass laws.

Fundamental Rights and Duties are enforceable in courts while the Directive
Principles are not. Therefore, the decision for enforcement of directive
principles lies in the hands of the aggrieved and it is upon the jurisdiction of the
court that it will decide whether to adjudicate this or not.

The judicial attitude has undergone various transformations where courts are
very active to uphold the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution
thereby interpreting the provisions of Part IV i.e. DPSP. Initially, the court has
adopted a strict and legal position in interpreting Parts III and IV of the
Constitution which is reflected in State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan, 9 it was held that case of conflict between the Part III and Part IV,
the Fundamental Rights will prevail.

In the recent decision of the Apex and the High Courts, there has been a
changing trend by making a harmonious construction between the Part III and
Part IV of the Constitution making the Directive Principles justifiable and
enforceable on par with the Part III i.e. the Fundamental Rights of the
Constitution. They both are supplementary and complementary to each other.